Pages

08 - JAN - Une bloggeuse à la LSE

Last night I went to this conference and here is my report. I have also included a couple of
comments from other people who attended.

I arrived early to make
sure of a seat towards the front. Then the speakers arrived. Clarence
Mitchell and Justine McGuinness shook hands and didn't look like they
had met before.

Quite a lot of lone women
in the audience but notably only one woman on the panel of speakers.

Another incident at the
beginning was remarked by another audience member: "Shortly
after Clarrie walked in and stood up front - at this point less than
8 feet from where I was sitting, some young Christian-looking type
walked over to Clarrie and handed him an envelope.He asked Clarrie to
give it to the McCann's.I knew there was money in the envelope -
fairly thick maybe about 20-30 bills inside. The envelope looked
clean and respected in a way some people treat an envelope with cash
in it. I was close enough to read "Drs. Gerry and Kate McCann".
Clarrie looked at the envelope, looked at me, then looked at the
envelope again. When he later took the stage and had a seat, he
placed the envelope in front of him and looked at it from time to
time."

Kelvin Mackenzie (former
editor of the Sun), Steve Hewlitt ( freelance journalist), the
'moderator', and Clarence Mitchell (McCanns' spokesman) sat at the
front table whilst the others sat in the front row.Kelvin starts
speaking: "This is the most significant story in my lifetime.
There are only 2 known facts: 1) a child is missing 2) Her parents
are the main suspects.

Every other story about
the disappearance of Maddie is a spin off of these two facts.

Without finding the child
this story will live in our lives forever.

Uniquely, this was a
middle class child who was kidnapped.

The Sun readership is
mostly C1's and D2's. When I wrote a story sympathetic to the Mccanns
I got the largest ever email bag between 8 and 10,000 emails.
99.9percent of them were against the McCanns. They said that the
coverage was classist. There is some truth in that.Referring to the
LSE audience Kelvin said an audience like this is at odds with the
population.

How a big story like this
works in Britain: normally after 2/3 days journalists covering the
case would have been brought together by police, off the record, and
they would explain what had happened. The journalists would be given
by and large 95% of the story. 5% would be held back.

Newspapers would then run
a wholly accurate story which would act as a warning in a dangerous
situation and stop speculation.

It's now been 272 days
since Madeleine has been missing. All there has been is one 3 minute
conversation between the Portuguese police and a UK journalist. The
stories don't come from the Portuguese police. Portuguese papers run
opposing stories every other day. This is a problem for the McCanns.
Everyone here is obsessed. Kelvin Mackenzie admits to being obsessed
himself.

When papers put the
McCanns on the front page, there is a 2 to 3% rise in circulation.

The recent story with
Ashley Cole, there is a rise of 2-3 per cent for the first day, maybe
the second. With the McCanns it's been that way for 9 months."

Steve Hewlitt asks: "
Why are readers so negative? "

Kelvin" Because of
the neglect. It's a class war issue. Punishment is wanted.It's an
incredible(good) idea to get a PR. They stop the parents from
doorstepping, phonecalls etc. I believe that Gerry McCann has gone
back to work. (Clarence nods but makes a point of saying that Kate
McCann has not gone back to work and has no intention of doing so).

Ordinary people however
don't associate PR with the truth. Now there are stories that Oprah
and Barbara have offered all this money."

Clarence: "Thats not
true by the way.

The PR was necessary but
there is a downside. People are suspicious. Somebody needs to help
the Mccanns in the modern era. Justine and I are a buffer so that the
McCanns can get on with their lives to a certain extent.

I am trying to tell the
truth.

The status of 'Arguido'
is less perjorative than the word suspect. By the way the McCanns did
not phone the press before the police. There are appalling standards
of journalism.Journalists are lazy and not checking the facts. Sloppy
standards with newspapers. I was with the McCanns for a month as a
government advisor. Then they called me in to help them out. I am not
suspicious of them. I wouldn't do this if I was. Briefing from the
police mean that I am very happy to defend them. I'm not usually a
person that supports causes.

On average a front page
puts on 70 thousand copies when they lead with the McCanns.

In todays world , with
pressure to get broadcasting out, it means standards have slipped.The
Uk press lifts material from the Portuguese press which then recycles
the UK press. It's distorted. They should get a green award."

Then an Irish guy
interrupts and says ' with all due respect, we've listened to you for
half an hour, we've heard all this before, stop rambling on". He
turns out to be from the Madeleines law campaign.

Clarence apologizes.

Steve Hewlitt asks some
tough questions: "This is media management ? The Morroccan
sighting was untrue. Was it appropriate for this new drawing of a man
to be described as a suspect in the manner of the police?

Did the police have this
info?"

Clarence:" yes since
May. And we asked Gail Cooper if the police had done a drawing of her
description and she said no. So we commissioned one."

Then Roger Graef [created
Dispatches documentary, and a criminologist]

After he did the
documentary he realized there was nothing really to say, as there
were no facts. People are talking about nothing, just unsubstantiated
rumour. No sources to confirm anything.McCanns did not want to work
on the documentary or approve of it until Madeleine is found. He
tried to be amusing (failing miserably). He said that he was
constantly being asked to comment on this story which has no
substance to it. He was of the Its disgusting how everybody treats
the McCanns school of thought. Really couldn't be bothered to listen
to him. But he annoyed me when he said leaving your children alone
when you are on holiday is perfectly normal and everybody does it.

Then David Mills
(Panorama producer who pulled out)gets up: He's another boring old
male fart. He says "It raises issues about police procedure,
forensic science in this country, and the British press. There are
precedents in the US and there are many parallels between the Ramseys
and the McCanns. He says something about the Ramseys being proved to
be wholly innocent. (Don't think thats true is it?)

Then a blonde woman
sitting next to me catches me tutting and hands me a leaflet for the
Madeleine's law campaign.

Next its Justine
Mcguinness: She immediately comes across as more relevant than the
two previous men. She says " the narrative of case is
superficially easy to understand... this story plays to everybody's
common fears. The McCanns represent aspirational Britain. They've

worked their way up from
a working class background to 'media' careers"( everybody laughs
at this freudian slip) . She corrects herself " 'medical'
careers I mean. One editor I spoke to admitted that he changed how he
covered the story based on the fact that the parents are doctors.

They made decisions at
the beginning:

-to pool media access, no
exclusives.

-The experts advised them
to use the media.

-They made a decision to
use electronic communications.

- And hits on websites
had influenced editorial policy."

Roy Greenslade:"Everyone
has a view. This story has gone in 4 phases:

1) initially- sympathy

2) skepticism, and its
appropriate for journalists to adopt this tone.

3)Long period of
suspicion

4) commercial cynicism."

He asks "Has the
media gone too far? Yes

Has the internet removed
editorial limits? Yes

Have the laws on
defamation been breached- Yes , people unlike journalists dont care
about defamation,thats the nature of gossip."

Questions from audience
start:

"What this the first
missing child in the UK? no

Was this the first
missing child case that used a professional PR? probably."

Clarence: "the
portuguese police don't engage with the media at all. When they went
to the british police station and saw the media room, they were like,
Whats this? Why you need this?(adopting slight portuguese accent)."

Next question from
audience:

"Does Article 8 'the
right to privacy' and article 10 'the right to freedom of expression'
from the Human rights legislation conflict?"

Didnt hear answer.

Angela from Sky news: (
blonde who asked blonde question) "Was this story big because it
was a slow news day?"

Kelvin: "No. The
story was huge in itself."

Lady from Madeleines law
said angry stuff but cant remember what.

Evening standard
journalist said something boring.

Madeleines law lady:
"What about the fund ? These private investigators. How much do
they cost?"

Clarence;" The cost
of agency 50K? But they are actually costing 7 or 8k but the rest is
for operational costs.

Another lady: Whatever
happened to the presumption of innocence?

The woman next to me
repeated Clarence Mitchells' claim of "knowing" that Kate
and Gerry are innocent. However, Clarence Mitchell and the former Sun
editor had said there was no real information - nothing came out of
the police's mouths. She then asked him, based on the fact that there
was no real information in the public domain, how does he know?

Clarrie replied he knows
because he believes Gerry and Kate. She pushed him and stated "so
if you know because you believe, then you BELIEVE they are innocent.
Therefore you don't really know! " Then she said "
Something stinks here!"

Clarrie cowered and
mumbled something about semantics, the girl sitting next to you got a
nice little clapping for her effort and Clarrie was really
humiliated.

More questions from the
audience: Richard Peel, a PR guy: Something about letting off
balloons.

Justine gets up and
defends decision to let off balloons.

I ask a question(nerves
thundering through my ears): "These men here and Clarence in the
past have said thats its normal for British parents to leave their
children alone when on holiday. This makes people furious. This sort
of media is not helping the McCanns.When the McCanns say they were
sorry to leave their children alone its always couched in very
careful terms. I was frustrated with what I was reading in the press,
it wasn't expressing my feelings and opinions, so I found the forums
like the Daily Mirror which has been shut down (and Clarence says Yes
we got that shut down) and now the 3arguidos. There are extreme
opinions, both pro and anti. I'm a fence sitter who veers towards
anti.

I believe that these
forums and online comments express a kind of collective gut feeling
that something is amiss. I then go on to say, please let me say one
more thing: there is no investigative journalism any more. One
poster, ellibean, went out to Praia da luz and filmed the distance
between the tapas bar and the apartment. No journalist did that. They
are all too busy sitting in the bar and using their exes (expenses).
"

Clarence nodded his
agreement about lack of investigative journalism.

Clarence Mitchell: "I'm
not a PR. I'm a journalist. I'm not putting a spin on it. There is an
image problem.I'm not critisising the police overtly."

Steve Hewlitt: "Is
it appropriate for the family to be doing this?You are not the
police."

Question from the
audience about fund and Justine McGuinness' wages.

Justine gets up: "I
received £55,000 from the fund. Actually I was very generous to the
McCanns.I worked very hard. I'm a professional. People have to earn a
living"

Woman from Madeleines law
shouts" Now i've heard it all. It's about a missing child. How
dare you? "

Justine: "I worked 7
days a week. I had 50 voice mails every half hour. It was
overwhelming." Turning towards Clarence in plea for support:
"I'm sure it was for clarence too."

Clarence pipes up and
says" Well i'm not being paid from the fund, i'm being paid by
Brian Kennedy. (slightly smugly I might add)

Then he says loudly,
rising to the bait: "You want facts. These are the facts. The
fund earnt 1.2 million from the website appeal. Even now Kate and
Gerry are getting letters with small checks from small kids and old
people. They are very grateful.

Now the fund is down to
570k. It's been used for private detectives and poster campaigns in
spain"

Blonde Madeleine's law
lady (find out her name is Debbie Butler) interrupts: "I go to
spain twice a week. I'm going tommorrow. I've never seen a poster
there. Its all spin, its a coverup."

Then Clarence says "it
will be down to 346k by end of March. This is publicly donated money.
"

The fund raising was
forcefully raised by the madeleines law couple. Clarence was quite
vociferous about there being no fraud, no spin. Nobody got a chance
to ask about money for other kids. Clarence did concede that the
Mccanns were lucky in their coverage and that the fact that say a
black working class single mum from an estate, in the same situation
would not get the same support tells us more about the media than the
McCanns.

I got the feeling the
attitude was more well done them for achieving this.( Remember
Justines words: they represent aspirational modern Britain and
compassion for others probably doesn't form part of that - this is my
opinion only)

Clarence did say also
that the head of Metodo3 was misquoted about saying Madeleine would
be home for christmas that he in fact say '"God willing(Ojala)
she'll be home for christmas".

There was more but that's
the bulk of it. I probably missed out stuff but there will be a pod
cast.

The Madeleine's law
people handed out leaflets to people.

Steve Hewlitt came up and
thanked me for my question which was nice.

My impressions: that
Clarence actually believes what he is saying. That the other guys
David Mills and Roger Graef know nothing and are not impartial.

Justine Mcguinness was
well humiliated and shown up for career building greedy guts. She is
now the spokesperson for the libdems (oops).

But I wouldn't say the
conference was a Clarence triumph at all. Quite the opposite. He
seemed to be pleading to be believed really. To be believed that he
was doing this for all the right reasons and that he genuinely
believed in the McCanns. On this occasion he was amongst his peers,
the press and at the end of this whole story, those are the people
whose respect he wishes to retain.

I'm surprised by the
press reports coming out of this conference initially: their quotes
do not reflect the content of the conference in my opinion. Steve
Hewlett certainly put Clarence on the spot. Kelvin was to the point
as always.

So despite the most part
of the panel being "pro" McCann, hard questions were asked.

However they talked for
an hour and we got to ask questions for less than an hour. So not
many questions were asked. I had so much that I wanted to say it was
hard to choose.

I have spent much of the
morning responding to the blogs such as Roy Greenslades and Charlie
Becketts, the organiser of the event, who wrote, both of them, unfair
and rather snobbish, articles about the great unwashed, us , the
commentariat*, who will insist on saying what we think and not what
we are told to think by our betters, the professionals. Martin Brunt,
the Sky correspondant was hurt not to be invited onto the panel.
Steve Hewlitt wrote an interesting piece on this PR campaign which
has failed the McCanns miserably by increasing suspicion of them
while maintaining their missing daughter in the spotlight.

*Julia Hobsbawn PR's
rather wonderful term to describe the ungovernable proletariat that
are writing on-line commentaries on the issues of the day...